On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 01:50:09PM -0800, H.J. Lu wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Dominique Dhumieres
> wrote:
> >> I got ...
> >
> > me too on x86_64-apple-darwin13 with -m32 (gcc and g++).
> > r206009 is OK, r206026 is not.
> >
>
> Mine is r206017 is OK and r206027 is bad. The change
> must be introduced between r2060178 and r206026.
Likely r206026.
The ICE is
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-1.c:136:30: internal
compiler error: in gen_lowpart_general, at rtlhooks.c:51
/opt/gcc/work/gcc/testsuite/c-c++-common/ubsan/overflow-1.c:12:29: note: in
defini
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Dominique Dhumieres wrote:
>> I got ...
>
> me too on x86_64-apple-darwin13 with -m32 (gcc and g++).
> r206009 is OK, r206026 is not.
>
Mine is r206017 is OK and r206027 is bad. The change
must be introduced between r2060178 and r206026.
--
H.J.
> I got ...
me too on x86_64-apple-darwin13 with -m32 (gcc and g++).
r206009 is OK, r206026 is not.
Dominique
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 02:20:05PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
>> This adds two sanity tests for signed-integer-overflow sanitization.
>> One variant uses asms to prevent ccp/... from optimizing away the
>> computations. Nothing in these tes
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 02:20:05PM +0100, Marek Polacek wrote:
> This adds two sanity tests for signed-integer-overflow sanitization.
> One variant uses asms to prevent ccp/... from optimizing away the
> computations. Nothing in these tests should fail.
>
> Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu a
This adds two sanity tests for signed-integer-overflow sanitization.
One variant uses asms to prevent ccp/... from optimizing away the
computations. Nothing in these tests should fail.
Regtested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu and powerpc64-unknown-linux-gnu,
ok for trunk?
2013-12-14 Marek Polacek
